Volume 1 — THE NINTH BOOK. 1668-1676. (continued 4)

‘Moreover, the falseness of this argument doth appear, in that the Scripture doth declare many contingent truths to have been revealed to the prophets in dreams. Now as natural and wicked men do not see what they dream by a real perception of the outward senses, but by inward ideas which are presented to the mind, and perceived by it, so it is also in divine revelations of this nature. Of which we have a clear example in Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin, who, when he observed his wife with child, was told in a dream, that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost: now I would know, to which of Joseph’s outward senses was this revealed? or what miracle had he to induce him to believe? which could neither be proved, so as to make an infallible application to Mary, by the testimony of the Scripture; and which being against the order of nature, did choke his reason. The Scripture mentions no miracle in this matter; and yet no doubt Joseph had highly sinned had he not believed this revelation, and notwithstanding, rejected his wife as an adultress. But if thou sayest, that according to thy hypothesis there must have been a miracle; that is only to beg the question: and how false this hypothesis is, the apostle shows clearly, 1 Cor. ii. 14. the natural or animal man knoweth not, receiveth not, the things of God. Now divine revelations are of this nature; if either chiefly or only those things were to be judged by the outward senses, it would contradict the apostle. For natural men, yea, the most wicked, have the use of the outward senses as true and exact as the most godly. And whereas the apostle adds, “For they are spiritually discerned,” it puts the matter out of all question: for thence it abundantly appears, that this discerning is not by the outward senses according to the following verse; for the apostle saith, “The spiritual man judgeth all things:” this then must be done by some senses or properties peculiar to the spiritual man, and in which he excels the natural man, which is not in the outward senses, as we all do know. Therefore the perception of “spiritual things cannot be by the outward senses, either as the chief or only means,” as is falsely contended for.

‘Now as to these words of the apostle, Rom. x. That faith comes by hearing; Zuinglius observed well, that the apostle intended not to affirm faith to come by the hearing of the outward word; neither do the following words prove it, “How shall they believe, unless they hear? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, unless they be sent?” for the apostle uses these words, not as his arguments, but as objections which might be formed; as the same apostle uses in other places; to which objections he answers in the same chapter, as appears verse 18. “But I say, have not they all heard? yes, truly their voice went into all the earth:” that is, of the Father and Son, or the Father in the word; which word is not only near us, but according to the same apostle in the same chapter, in our mouths, and in our hearts. But further thou canst conclude nothing from this, but that faith is begotten by outward hearing only, and no otherwise: for this is the strength of thy argument, that since faith cannot be without outward hearing, therefore nothing can certainly be believed, but where somewhat is proposed to the outward hearing. For if thou acknowledge faith can be begotten any otherwise than by hearing, thou losest the strength of thy argument: and if that argument hold, that faith comes only by outward hearing, thou destroyest the whole hypothesis. For having before affirmed, that outward miracles are sufficient to render one certain of the truth of any revelation; whether it be the healing of the sick, or the raising of the dead, would avail nothing, because those, (as for the most part all miracles,) are obvious to the sight, not to the hearing: and if it be not by outward hearing only, thou canst conclude nothing from this place.

‘But I the more wonder thy using of this argument, considering the discourse we had together before we entered upon this debate: for when we were speaking of the opinion of a certain person, who denied the certainty of every thing, but what was discerned by the outward senses, thou condemnedst it as most absurd; but why, I cannot conceive, since there is no great difference betwixt these two opinions: the one saith there can be no great certainty concerning any truths, whether they be necessary or contingent, but by the perception of the senses: the other affirms the same of contingent truths, though not of necessary truths. But among the number of contingent truths thou esteemest what belongs to Christian religion, for thou reckons the necessary truths only to belong to natural religion. This then is all the difference, that that other person says, there is no certainty of any religion, neither natural nor Christian, but by the perception of the outward senses: but thou sayest though thou esteemest the certainty of natural religion to be without them, yet not of the Christian religion. But again, since thou esteemest that not natural religion but the Christian religion is necessary to salvation, thou must necessarily conclude, that those truths which are necessary to salvation, are only known and believed by the benefit of the outward senses: in which conclusion, (which is the sum of all,) thou yieldest the matter to that other person.

‘But lastly: if all the certainty of our faith, hope, and salvation, did depend upon the infallibility of outward senses, we should be most miserable; since these senses can be easily deceived, and, by many outward casualties and natural infirmities, whereunto the godly are no less subject than the wicked, are often vitiated; and there are, (as the Scripture affirms,) false miracles, which, as to the outward, cannot be distinguished from the true; of which we cannot infallibly judge by the outward senses, which only discern what is outward.

‘There is a necessity then to have recourse to some other means.

‘From all which it does appear, how fallacious and weak this argument is: but thanks be unto God, who would not that our faith should be built upon so uncertain and doubtful a foundation. And whoever hath known true faith, or hath felt the divine testimony of God’s spirit in his soul, will judge otherwise, neither will be moved by such reasonings. I pray God therefore to remove these clouds, which darken thy understanding, that thou mayest perceive the glorious gospel of Christ; this is that saving word of grace which I commend thee unto; and that God may give thee a heart inclinable to believe and obey the truth, is the desire of

Thy faithful friend, R. BARCLAY.’

From the prison of Aberdeen, in Scotland, where I am confined for the sake of the testimony of Jesus. November 24, 1676.

This letter, a year ago, at the desire of my friend R. B. I delivered into the hands of the afore-named ambassador, desiring his answer in writing, which he then promised; but not having as yet done, it was seen meet to be published.

B. F.

Rotterdam, the 28th of March, 1678.

A brief and distinct Solution of the Argument which the Ambassador aforesaid useth against Robert Barclay’s Thesis, whereby he attempts to evince, that not the inward revelation of the Holy Spirit, but the outward by the Scripture, is the principal rule, and foundation of our faith: at least to us Europeans, who have the Scriptures.

As to his argument, as it was transmitted to us, if he considers the strength and substance of it, thus it stands: ‘The history of the outward coming, nativity, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, is either necessary to their salvation, to whom the Scriptures came, or it is not necessary, viz. to be known and believed. If we say the second, namely, that the history is not necessary to be known and believed in order to the salvation of us Europeans who have the Scriptures, then it will follow that we are not Christians, because we deny that true, essential, and constitutive character of the Christian religion, which consists in believing that Christ was sent into the world, born of the Virgin Mary, dead and buried, rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, &c. But if they say the first, viz. That the knowledge and faith of the history are necessary to our salvation, then it will follow, that the Scripture, and not the inward revelation of the holy Spirit, is the principal rule and foundation of that historical faith and knowledge.

Now this he endeavours to prove, both from some other principles of the Quakers, so called, and from R. B.’s sixth Thesis, after this manner:

That, said the ambassador, is the principal rule and foundation of our faith, which is the only medium or mean, whereby that historical knowledge and faith are brought unto us: but, according to the Quakers, and the sixth Thesis, the Scripture is the only medium or mean, whereby that historical knowledge and faith are brought unto us: therefore, according to the Quakers, and the sixth Thesis, the Scripture is the principal rule and foundation of our faith.

The minor he proves thus: the author of the Thesis, (says he,) confesseth in his sixth Thesis, that there is a people, to whom God, by some inevitable accident, hath made that historical knowledge and faith impossible: and the reason why that historical knowledge and faith are impossible to that people, is because they are destitute of the Scriptures, and live in those corners of the world, whereunto the outward preaching of the history never came; from which argument it will follow, that the Scriptures are the only medium or mean, whereby the historical knowledge and faith of Christ came to any people.

For the clearer understanding the solution of this argument, some things worthy observation are to be considered:

1. First then observe, that the force of this argument at most intends to prove this, viz. That the Scripture is the principal rule and foundation of historical faith and knowledge; but we with good reason distinguish between historical and saving knowledge, and between historical and saving faith; because many may have an historical knowledge and faith, who have not that which is saving. Yea, it is possible, that a man, by the inward revelation of the holy Spirit, may have an historical knowledge and faith, who yet may not have that faith which is saving; because saving faith hath regard to God, not precisely as revealing some outward history concerning God and Christ but as revealing very God and Christ by his grace, goodness, mercy, and power, ready and willing to save us, according to his unspeakable good-will towards us: by which saving faith we rest upon God through Christ, our light and life, as upon our most merciful Father; which faith can neither exist, nor be conceived without love to God, humility before God, denial, and diffidence of self; and therefore such a faith is saving. But historical faith, though wrought in the hearts of men by the inward revelation and operation of the holy Spirit, may be without that divine love, humility and self-denial: wherefore precisely considered in its own nature, it is not saving. It was this kind of knowledge and faith which wicked Balaam had, who saw and knew many historical futurities, and believed them, but had not saving faith.

2. Observe, secondly, That the knowledge and faith necessary to salvation, are to be understood two ways, either by a necessity antecedent, or in way of priority, or by a necessity consequent, or in way of posteriority. Necessity antecedent, or in way of priority, is, when something is absolutely necessary to our salvation, that we both know and believe it; and because it is necessary, God doth therefore reveal it to us; of which sort are such principles as these, viz. That God follows men with his love and good-will; that he invites and persuades them to come unto him; that he is ready to show favour to men, and pardon their sins, if they sincerely repent themselves of their past misspent life, and lead a new one for the time to come; that God hears the prayers of those that are truly humble and suppliant; that he is a glorious rewarder of all that live soberly, righteously, and godly; that he is a most just avenger against all those who despise his grace and love, and repent not of their sins, &c. All which, in some degree, are to all men, even to those who are destitute of the Scriptures, revealed by that inward evangelical light, which enlightens all men. Necessity consequent, or in way of posteriority, is, when something is not absolutely necessary to our salvation, but after a certain sort, or under some respect, condition, and limitation; of which kind are those things which are not revealed, because they are necessary; but because they are revealed, they are necessary to be believed by us: for example; if God should reveal to any man, that it was his will and command, he should go to Rome to reprove tyranny and superstition; certainly this revelation were necessary to be believed to that man’s salvation, by a necessity consequent, because that faith is an act of obedience; and to obey God is necessary to salvation.

3. Observe in the third place, that among those things that are necessary to be believed to salvation by a necessity consequent, there are some things, though not absolutely necessary, yet are they very profitable and conducive means to our salvation; of which sort are the historical knowledge and faith concerning God, the creation and government of the world. Christ’s taking flesh, and dying therein for our sins, &c. whether that historical knowledge come to us, either by the sole inward revelation of the holy Spirit, without the medium or mean of Scripture, or also by both, to wit, both by the inward inspiration of the holy Spirit, and by the Scriptures; which two mediums or means, do sometimes concur in producing in men historical knowledge and faith concerning God and Christ, as is said before, but in a different manner. The outward revelation, as it is called, of Scripture, is a medium or mean, by way of material object, in producing that historical knowledge and faith: but the inward inspiration and revelation wrought in the hearts of men by the holy Spirit, are a medium or mean by way of formal object, in producing the same historical knowledge and faith. By the material object we understand that which is believed; and therefore the Scriptures which are believed, are the material object of historical knowledge and faith. By the formal object we understand the principal motive in respect to the object, for which the Scriptures are believed. But the principal motive in respect of the object, is not the Scripture itself, but that inward testimony of the holy Spirit, which when we hear or read the Scriptures, when it pleaseth the most good and great God to inspire the hearts of men, works an assent in us, whether it inclines us to assent to the historical truths hitherto declared in the Scriptures or no: wherefore we do not affirm that the holy Spirit doth ordinarily and commonly speak in us something that is new, or declare to our inward hearing those particular histories of God and Christ, (though God may, if he shall please, do it at this day;) but we say, that God doth by his holy Spirit, through his sensible and perceptible motions and operations objectively representing themselves, move and incline us to assent unto, and believe the Scriptures, and the historical truths declared of in the Scriptures.

These things considered, we affirm, that though the Scriptures are ordinarily and commonly a certain medium or mean, by way of material object or condition, for the producing of historical knowledge and faith in us; and that, commonly speaking, a necessary mean too, as being that without which God doth not ordinarily reveal the outward history of God and Christ; yet we utterly deny that in true Christians the Scripture, or outward history in the Scriptures, is the principal motive, foundation, or principal rule of that historical faith, much less of saving faith, to the producing of which the letter of the Scripture doth very frequently, (as to many of its acts, if not all,) not concur or co-operate, either as a material object, or as a necessary condition, which is wont commonly to be called in the schools, Causa sine quâ non, or a cause or condition without which a thing cannot be done, though it doth not influence the effect.

Now for a direct solution of the argument aforesaid, we answer, that the historical knowledge and faith concerning Christ’s being born, dead, buried, &c. to us Europeans, who have the Scriptures, are necessary to salvation, that is to say, by a necessity consequent, or in way of posteriority, (as was before explained,) which assertion of ours nevertheless militates not against the sixth Thesis, which granteth, that that historical knowledge and faith are impossible to those who live in those corners of the world, where the knowledge of the history is wanting: which impossibility is not absolutely to be understood, but after a sort, and in some respect; because, without doubt, God doth ordinarily communicate that historical knowledge unto men, by the medium or mean of the Scriptures; yet not as the principal medium or mean, much less as by the only one: because certainly that inward motion of the holy Spirit wrought in our hearts, moving and inclining us objectively to assent unto, and believe the Scriptures, is the principal motive in respect of the object, for which we believe the Scriptures, and therefore is the foundation and principal rule of our historical faith also.

Wherefore we answer unto the minor proposition of the last syllogism, by plainly and directly denying that minor proposition, viz. That the Scriptures are the only medium or mean for attaining to the knowledge of the history: they are indeed one certain medium or mean, and that necessary; but they are not the only or principal. An example for the illustration hereof, occurs in natural and outward vision: for when I see a white or red rose, that white or red rose is the material object of my sight, and one necessary medium for the producing of that sight; yet that rose is not the only medium or mean; for the light is another, no less necessary, concurring to produce my sight, by way of formal object, by means of which I see that rose represented under such or such a colour and figure. Moreover, in that he asserts, these inward motions wrought by the holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, are so undiscernible by us, that believers cannot clearly and infallibly distinguish them from their own private and proper motions; this he supposes but proves not. And therein he is deceived, either through his inexperience, or want of that due waiting, and attention to those motions in the divine illumination of Christ, wherewith he hath enlightened both him [the ambassador] and all men coming into the world. But our experience, together with the experience of the holy prophets and apostles, is a stronger motive to induce us to believe, that divine inward revelation is sufficiently clear and convincing by its own light and evidence, than his own bare and jejune supposition to the contrary, by reason of his want of experience or attention.

As to the Latin, we have not been very curious in this writing, by reason of haste; yet have briefly answered the argument as a friend communicated it to us by letter; if he hath omitted any thing in this transmission, or we may seem not to have understood, or touched the strength of the argument, let it be remitted to us; and we, through divine assistance, shall answer it at large.

GEORGE KEITH, and ROBERT BARCLAY.

This solution was delivered to the said ambassador, not long before the epistle cited page 537, and at page 17, in the Appendix to Sewel’s Dutch History.

A brief Enodation of an Argument proposed by another person.

Moreover as to what relates to another person’s argument against that part of R. B.’s second Thesis, which asserts, that divine inward revelation is that which is evident and clear of itself, moving the well-disposed understanding by its own evidence, &c. to the end of the Thesis.

The argument is thus formed: Such an evidence as is asserted in the Thesis, is destructive of faith, because it is not the evidence of faith. He proves the antecedent by the words of the Apostle, “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. xi. 1. By which words the apostle seems to intimate, that faith hath not this kind of evidence; for if it were of things seen, it would contradict the apostle.

The solution of this argument is easy; for evidence is three-fold.

The first is the evidence of things sensible, appertaining to the outward senses.

The second is the evidence of things intellectual, but natural, appertaining to natural reason.

The third is the evidence of things spiritual and supernatural, as they are proposed to the understanding by the inward illumination and revelation of the Holy Spirit.

The first evidence may be called the evidence of sense, or animal evidence.

The second, the evidence of reason, or rational evidence.

The third, the evidence of faith, or spiritual evidence.

But faith is the evidence of things not seen, that is, neither visible by the outward senses, or by natural reason; yet these things hinder not, but that faith may be the evidence of things not seen by the understanding of a man, not as operating in its own natural way, but as divinely elevated and assisted by the inward illumination and operation of the holy Spirit. Wherefore, though things appertaining to faith may be very obscure, and as it were mere darkness, both to the outward senses, and natural reason; yet they have their evidence, if duly proposed to an understanding divinely enlightened. Is it not said in the same chapter to the Hebrews, concerning Moses, that by faith he saw God? That is to say, not by the outward eye, nor by the eye of natural reason, but by the eye of faith.

The curious may see the original Latin, from which the preceding are translated, in the Appendix to William Sewel’s Dutch History of the Quakers.